
































# 




Glass 3 K '1 % | 

4 ' 

Book-^4— 


t 




















i I 













' 



















































































































































































































































































































































































, 











































































































LETTER OF GEN. . BUTLER, 

-N i« 


OF MASS. 


THE SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. 


THE VENALITY AND UNTR UTIIFULNESS OF A 
PORTION OF THE PRESS. 


IIE SHOWS A, CONSPIRACY TO BREAK DOWN THE REPUBLI¬ 
CAN ADMINISTRATION BY DENUNCIATION OF 
INCREASE OF SALARIES. 



BOSTON: 

PRESS OF ROCKWELL &c CHURCHILL. 


122 Washington Street. 

1 8 73 . 




















CORRESPONDENCE. 


Amesbury, April 18, 1873. 

Gen. B. F. Butler: — 

My dear Sir , — Since the adjournment of Congress, I 
have noticed in some of the daily papers many charges and 
insinuations, that the " Salary Bill,” passed by that body, 
was a swindle and a steal, for which you are held to a great 
extent responsible. 

Some of your constituents would be pleased to learn of 
the reasons which governed your action upon this question, 
among them, 

Yours truly, 

Geo. H. Briggs. 


LETTER OE GENERAL BUTLER. 


SALARIES, PUBLIC MEN, AND NEWSPAPERS. 


Boston, July 28th, 1873. 

NOT AFRAID OF THE QUESTION. 

Dear Sir : — The apology due for not sooner replying to 
your kind note asking " the reasons which governed my ac¬ 
tion upon the question of the Increase of Salaries” is, that 
I have not wished to appear anxious to attempt to forestall 
opinion on that subject, or to rush to the defence of a meas¬ 
ure that ought not to have been attacked. 

It has never been discussed by its opponents, only abused, 
and Congress denounced. I have had, however, no fear but 






4 


the just judgment of the people, when it could be reached, 
would sustain it, and absolve those who voted for it from all 
wrong in action or intention. 

FUTURE SALARY CAN NOT BE OBJECTED TO. 

I am not aware that there has been any well-considered 
objection made to the increase of the salary of the President, j 

the Vice-President, the Cabinet Officers, the Judges of the 
Supreme Court, or that of Members of Congress, when 
applied to the future. No one not blindly prejudiced, weigh¬ 
ing the facts, can doubt the increase of the President’s salary 
was proper, whether he looks at it as compensation for the 
services rendered, or as a reasonable and adequate support 
for the officer and family, in view of the requirements of his 
position, or as a proper recognition of the dignity and high 
station of his office; or compares it with the salary at first 
established in 1789. Twenty-five thousand dollars a year 
then, in their purchasing power, and in comparison with the 
incomes and emoluments of individuals, were five times more, 
to say the least, than now. 

OUR FATHERS GAVE THE PRESIDENT A SALARY BEFITTING HIS 
HIGH OFFICE. 

The great disparity between that sum and three thousand 
dollars, the salary of a member of the cabinet then, shows 
the estimation in which the fathers of the Republic held the 
office of President; else why make his emoluments eight 
times greater than those of his cabinet, besides furnishing 
him with a house, secretaries, servants, and equipage, even . j 

to the saddle on which he rode, and the wagon in which his 
marketing was brought home? And this disparity is further 
seen, because three thousand dollars was equal to the highest 
salaries then paid in business enterprises. How different 
the fact now! A better idea of the difference between 
money values .then and now may be seen in the fact, that 
Washington, ten years afterwards, died, the second richest 


5 


man of that year, arfd his fortune was six hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars; and the very richest man and most suc¬ 
cessful merchant died that year, worth less than a million. 

PRIVATE FORTUNES ARE NOW RECKONED liY MILLIONS. 

Now there is more than one private fortune in the-country • 
which counts a quarter as many millions as Washington had 
thousands; and quite a number of men, in many States of 
the Union, whose fortunes are from ten to fifty times as 
much. 

A SALARY IN PROPORTION TO WASHINGTON*S GIVES GRANT 

$ 275 , 000 . 

Another fact will show the difference in value of a salary 
then and now. Take the difference in the amount of specie 
in circulation in the country at the two points nearest to 
the time of comparison of which we have official statistics ; 
(see Report made to Congress, in 1854), — the year 1816, 
when there was seven and a half millions all told, and the year 
1854, when there was a hundred and eighty-one millions. 

Again, the difference in the numbers of the people who 
pay the salary seems to illustrate this point. Suppose, 
against the fact, no man in the country was richer now 
than in 1789, the problem maybe stated thus: as three 
and a half millions of population who paid Washington’s 
salary is to twenty-five thousand dollars, its amount, so is 
thirty-eight and a half millions, present population of the 
country, to a proportionate salary to General Grant. Give 
the President a salary in this proportion, and he would have, 
in round numbers, two hundred and seventy-five thousand 
dollars a year, instead of fifty thousand, which Congress has 
now established. The same proportion of increase applied to 
the Cabinet officers, the Supreme Judges, and to members of 
the Congress, would nearly treble their present salaries. This 
proportion, and more, holds good in every trade or profession, 


6 


as to the price of services between Washington’s time and 
now. 

A MECHANIC GETS TEN TIMES MORE NOW THAN THEN. 

The skilled mechanic who repaired the President’s house 
in Philadelphia, in 1789, worked from sun to sun for fifty 
cents per day. The mechanic whom I desire to build my 
house at Washington, claims $8 per day, and stipulates 
for ten hours’ work only. 

A CONGRESSMAN SHOULD HAVE HIGHER PAT THAN CABINET 
OFFICERS. 

But in order to reproach members of Congress, it is 
said they should not have as high a salary as judges and 
cabinet officers, because the former are kept in Washington 
by their duties only a portion of the year. So far from 
that consideration having weight, it should be precisely 
the reverse. The short time for which members of the House 
are elected, necessitates that the member during his term 
of service must keep up two homes — his house in which 
he dwells, which no prudent man would sell or dismantle 
for so short a term, and his house in Washington, if 
he lives in a house, as for his own sake, and that of his 
family, he ought to do; while the cabinet officer, appointed, 
as a rule, for four years, and the judge, appointed for life, 
with a retiring pension in old age, can make his only and 
permanent home at Washington. 

THE BILL EQUALIZES AND REDUCES SALARIES BY CUTTING OFF 
MILEAGE. 

Besides, so far as it relates to Congressmen, this bill has 
been entirely misrepresented, if not misunderstood. It does 
not so much increase the salaries of members as it equal¬ 
izes them. Ever since the Constitution was adopted, the 
compensation of a member of Congress has been in part 
in the form of mileage. In the time of Washington it was 
fixed at thirty cents a mile, subsequently reduced, but always 



7 


causing very great inequality in compensation. As the 
population of the country extended itself, the mileage added 
largely to the emoluments of the distant Senators and 
Representatives, while the facilities of transportation by 
steamboat and railroad, especially if the member was com¬ 
plimented with a free pass, did not change the inequality; so 
that there were members of the last Congress, who were 
receiving nearly, or quite, seven thousand five hundred dollars 
as compensation, while others were receiving only a few 
dollars over five thousand. 

BY ABOLISHING ALL ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES , IT MAKES BUT 
SMALL ACTUAL ADDITION TO PAY. 

The present bill abolishes all mileage, and thus reduces the 
pay of some members quite fifty per cent., while it raises that 
of others a like amount. Again, heretofore, divers allow¬ 
ances were made to members of Congress in the shape of 
newspapers, stationery, franking privilege, and other matters, 
which in the past have been overdrawn, and were abused by 
the selfish and grasping; all of which were cut off by this 
bill, and nothing allowed except the actual certified expenses 
paid by the members in getting to and from the Capitol . To 
show the extent of this inequality in mileage in the past, take 
1856 for example, when the delegate from Oregon received 
nineteen thousand dollars and upwards a year for his 
services, while the member from Philadelphia received a 
little over three thousand. Thus you will see, my dear sir, 
that there has been no such addition to the pay as has been 
pretended in the public journals, it being usually stated 
therein that every Congressman voted himself five thousand 
dollars additional pay, whereas the deduction of mileage and 
these allowances being made, there has not been really, on 
an average, more than one thousand dollars a year added, if 
so much; but how much cannot exactly be known except by 
the experience of the results to members in the expense of 
carrying on their correspondence and doing the business of 


» 


8 


their constituents, the member now paying his own postage 
even when addressing the President of the United States in 
the public service. 

THE NEWSPAPERS CONCEAL THE FACTS. 

I am inclined to think that this statement of the fact must 
be substantially new to you, and yet your letter shows that 
you have read the newspaper denunciations of the bill and 
their misrepresentations of its effect. 

You will naturally inquire why have not these self- 
appointed guardians of the public morals given to the peo¬ 
ple a fair and just exposition of the facts, instead of gross 
misrepresentations of them? You may well do so, and this 
question I will endeavor to answer before I get through. 

SALARY IS NOT TOO LARGE WHILE AGENTS OF MILLS GET AS 
MUCH , AND CLERGYMEN $ 26,000. 

I will not pursue this branch of the subject further, be¬ 
cause I do not believe the salary, in the future, can be 
deemed too large by any right-minded man, specially when 
he considers that the services of an efficient agent of a manu¬ 
facturing establishment of any considerable amount of capital 
cannot be procured for less than seven thousand five hundred 
dollars a year, and that, too, in a permanent situation, while 
our railroads pay twenty-five thousand dollars and upwards 
for the salaries of their presidents, and churches an equal 
amount to their clergymen. 

THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO ELECT REPRESENTATIVES WORTH AS 
MUCH AS EITHER. 

Ought not the people to elect representatives of their in¬ 
terests worth as much as the least of these amounts, if salary 
is to be reckoned as compensation for valuable services, or, 
viewed in the more proper light, as simply an adequate sup¬ 
port of the member and his family, while doing his public 
duties? Indeed, the uncontroverted fact, that no member of 
the incoming Congress is reported to havo refused to take his 


9 

increased pay monthly, — as has been the custom of Con¬ 
gress to do, — would seem to imply that by them, at least, it 
is deemed a proper and adequate amount only. 

MINISTER WASHBURNE SAYS “MEMBERS OUGHT NOT TO KEEP HA LI 

A BOZEN MISTRESSES , OR BUCK THE TIGER” / BUT DOES NOT 

TELL WHAT THAT IS. 

A letter appears in the newspapers, purporting to come 
from Mr. Washburne, our Minister to France, upon the ques¬ 
tion of the sufficiency of the salary of members of Congress, 
in one portion of which I agree with him so far as I under¬ 
stand the language he uses. It says, "The people don’t send 
their representatives to Washington to live like princes, buck 
the tiger and keep half a dozen mistresses.” 

Therefore I voted a salary sufficient to support the 
member’s famity at Washington, to guard him from tempta¬ 
tion to such a multiplicity of mistresses. If Mr. Wash- 
burne’s elegant innuendo is supported by the fact, the mem¬ 
ber should have his family with him. What exactly the Min¬ 
ister to France may mean by the undefined phrase, " buck the 
tiger,” I am quite uncertain. I certainly never have seen any¬ 
thing in Washington that went by that name during my seven 
years’ service in Congress. If the minister is familiar with 
it, it may account for the ability which he claims to live on a 
small salary. 

HE DOES NOT OBJECT TO TAKING “ BACK PAY” AS MINISTER , 

HOWEVER. 

Still, I have not observed any objection on his part to 
the appropriation of fifty thousand dollars additional, 
passed in 1871, for the purpose of defraying the expenses in 
part of the Minister to France in 1870, although that appro¬ 
priation was retroactive. Without this increase or " bucking 
the tiger,” it would seem a little easier to live not " like a 
prince” and support a family in Paris, at $17,500 gold, 
than to do the same in Washington on $7,500 currency. 


2 


10 


IF TAKING BACK PAY IS “ STEALING, SWINDLING, AND BOBBERY ,” 
ALL PUBLIC MEN ARE EQUALLY GUILTY. 

If you, sir, have thus far agreed with me, and believe that 
the salary of a member ought to be what with the deductions 
it is in the future, then why should not the members of the 
last Congress receive a like amount? 

The reasons why the pay was made applicable to the late 
Congress have never been alluded to or discussed ; but the fact 
is the subject of the fiercest denunciation, to some of which 
you allude in your note. It has been called "a swindle,” " a 
steal,” " a grab,” " a robbery ; ” the men receiving it have been 
denominated "thieves,” "robbers,” "grabbers,” "plunderers.” 
Indeed, all the vocabulary of Billingsgate has been exhausted 
in describing it. Let us now see if these are proper terms 
to be applied to the members of the National Legislature 
because of a constitutional and usual legislative act; and if 
so, how many of our public men and all classes of our 
citizens are subject to a like condemnation and to be branded 
with the same epithets. 

THIS IS SPECIALLY TRUE OF MASSACHUSETTS JUDGES , AND 
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. 

If it can be made to appear — as is the fact — that from 
the beginning of the government to the present hour, 
every State Legislature and every Congress which has 
increased the salary of its members, has made that increase 
applicable to those who voted it, relating back to the begin¬ 
ning of their term of service; if it shall appear, con¬ 
fining ourselves now to the State of Massachusetts, where 
for a reason obvious to all, these newspaper denunciations 
have been the loudest, that every executive officer, every 
judge on the bench, when his salary was increased, has 
always taken " back salary ; ”— that is, salary which was raised 
retroactively to a time of service for which a lower pay was 
fixed by law,— then all these men are "thieves,” "plunderers,” 
"swindlers,” "salary-grabbers,” and "robbers.” 


11 


ALL OUR SOLDIERS HAVE RECEIVED BACK PAY. 

If it shall appear that all the brave men who, as soldiers, 
fought in the ranks, who, enlisting to serve for a certain 
bounty and pay, have petitioned Congress to give increased 
pay and bounty, and, believing it just, Congress has given it 
to them, and they have received it; then all these heroes who 
offered their lives to save their country are back-pay " grab¬ 
bers,” "thieves,” and "robbers,” as well as the members of 
the United States Congress. 

OUR MECHANICS HAVE RECEIVED BACK PAY FROM THE GOVERN¬ 
MENT. 

If it shall appear that all mechanics in the employ of 
the government, before the eight-hour law was put in oper¬ 
ation by the President’s proclamation, who have petitioned 
Congress to give, and have received additional pay retro¬ 
actively, after they had given a receipt in full for their 
services, then a great body of our mechanics are back-pay 
"grabbers,” "salary-stealers,” "robbers,” and "plunderers,” 
as much as the members of the United States Congress. 

ALL NEWSPAPERS “ GRAB” BACK PAY WHEN THEY CAN AND LIBEL 
THOSE WHO GIVE IT TO THEM. 

Nay, further, if it shall appear that these censors of pub¬ 
lic morals—the newspapers themselves — have, for their own 
emolument, taken back pay retroactively, for services per¬ 
formed before the pay was raised, then they, too, come into 
this category of " grabbers,” "thieves,” and "swindlers;” 
and if the same newspapers have falsely maligned the legis¬ 
lators, holding at the same time their own backpay money in 
their pockets, then as to them additional epithets will spring 
to the lips of right-minded and just men, such as falsifiers, 
maligners and libelers. 


12 


SALARIES HAVE BY ALL LEGISLATURES BEEN RAISED BACKWARDS. 

Salaries have been fixed six times in Congress — in 1789, 
in 1796, in 1816, in 1856, in 1866, and 1873; and each 
time, "back pay ” was given to the beginning of the 
term for which the Congressmen voting it were elected. In 
every Legislature in this State — and so far as I can ascertain, 
in every other State wherein the pay has been raised — there 
has always been " back pay ” to the beginning of the term 
for which the members of the Legislature voting it were 
elected. Since 1864, every principal executive and judicial 
officer in this State has had his salary raised retroactively ; 
that is, going backward for a longer or shorter period, and 
every one has taken it. As an example, in the year 1866, 
the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court were raised 
one thousand dollars a year, to take effect from the first of 
January previously, — a clear case of " back salary. ” 

MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURES , JUDGES AND OFFICERS ALWAYS TAKE 
“ BACK PA Y. }) 

Now all these judges and officers, all these legislators, all 
these members of Congress, from $he beginning, have taken 
the "back salary;” and until March, 1873, no man has ever 
returned it. 

SO DO WORKINGMEN , AND ARE GLAD TO GET IT. 

Again, you will remember that all the mechanics employed 
by the Government worked ten hours a day after the eight- 
hour law was passed for nearly a year, at a rate of wages 
agreed upon by themselves in the government employ, until 
the President, by proclamation, in spite of the opinion to the 
contrary of Attorney-General Hoar, gave the law, making 
eight hours a day’s labor in the government works its due 
effect. Then all these mechanics asked Congress — and a 
bill passed the House to that effect — that their pay might be 
raised backwards two-fifths during the term they had so been 


13 


employed. Are these working men also " thieves,” robbers,” 
and " back-pay grabbers ” ? 

SO ])G SOLDIERS TAKE BACK PAY ANT) BOUNTY , AND ARE SORRY 
CONGRESS DOES DOT DO THEM JUSTICE AND GIVE THEM MORE. 

Again, during the war, our soldiers enlisted for certain 
bounty and pay which was then promised them as a part of 
their contract. Afterwards, an increase of pay and bounty 
was given by law to others, and all our soldiers asked 
therefore an increase of " back pay ” and bounty to be 
given them; and bills for the equalization of bounty have 
been pressed upon the attention of Congress, and upon State 
Legislatures, although to pass them would be " giving back 
pay and back bounty for services already rendered.” Are 
all our soldiers "back-pay grabbers,” " thieves,” and " rob¬ 
bers ” ? — for many of them have already taken increased 
" back pay ” and bounty in lands and other emoluments. 

, Have not the newspapers, and clergymen who are preaching 
against " back pay,” undertaken a larger job than they can 
well carry through, in attempting to convict all classes of our 
fellow-citizens of being thieves and robbers? 

BETTER BE RIGHT WITH THE JUDGES , SOLDIERS AND WORKING¬ 
MEN THAN WRONG WITH THE NEWSPAPERS AND POLITICAL 
PARSONS. 

For myself, singular as it may seem to them, I prefer to 
be denounced, in company with the judges, the senators, the 
legislators, the executive officers of our State, the soldiers 
and workingmen of our State, than to be extolled by the 
newspapers, or the little clique of clergymen who are turning 
the churches into caucuses to gratify their personal spite. 

THE NEWSPAPERS ARE DEEPER IN THE MUD THAN ANYBODY 

ELSE. 

But say you to me : " You have not yet touched the 
newspapers. If the judges, legislators and others, are all 


14 


as deep in the mud as Congress is in the mire, still the news¬ 
papers are pure and white as snow.” 

NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS ALWAYS LIVE ON THE GOVERNMENT 
WHEN THEY CAN. 

Let me give you a fact, of which you are, perhaps, 
unaware. Quite all the principal newspapers in the United 
States are supposed to maintain in Washington a cor¬ 
respondent, whose letters make their appearance under the 
head of " our special Washington correspondence.” Now 
a very large majority of those newspaper correspondents have 
been for a great many years appointed clerks of the several 
committees of the House and Senate, by the chairman who 
has the right of appointment, generally upon the under¬ 
standing that his newspaper shall glorify the chairman as an 
equivalent for the salary of the clerk who is thus supported 
as " correspondent.” 

THE PAPERS COULD NOT HAVE GOOD ONES IF THEY DID NOT 
“ STEAL” THEIR PAY FROM THE TREASURY. 

To write letters and discuss public questions so 
as to interest the people, the correspondent must be 
a man of very considerable literary and other ability who 
in fields of useful labor could command large compensation. 
Such men the Washington correspondents, with a few excep¬ 
tions, are. The newspapers cannot afford to pay them their 
price, and therefore could not afford to retain them unless 
they contrived in this way to filch their support out of the 
Treasury. 

THEY ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL “ GRAB BACK SALARY ” 
AND VILIFY THOSE WHO VOTE IT. 

In different Congresses the pay of clerks of com¬ 
mittees has been raised retroactively back to the 
beginning of the session, and in every instance each one of 
these newspaper correspondents — sometimes the editor him¬ 
self being the clerk — has "grabbed ” his back pay. In this 


15 


last salary bill the back-pay feature of which the newspapers 
so much denounce, the pay of these very newspaper corre¬ 
spondents, clerks of the two Houses, was raised fifteen per 
cent., going back to March, 1870, and every newspaper — 
and there was a large number who had clerks on com¬ 
mittees— took back pay for two years, rolling it as a 
sweet morsel under their tongues, and then wrote and pub¬ 
lished virtuous articles denouncing the "back-pay grab.” 

THEY LOBBY FOR IT , TAKE IT , BUT NEVER RETURN IT. 

Let me state further what is within my personal knowledge, 
that these very clerks were upon the floor of the House when 
the bill giving them back pay was under consideration, 
lobbying for it furiously, and exhibiting most nervous fears 
lest it should fail. And although, by their calumnies and 
slanders, the newspapers have frightened a few men—who, 
as I believe, mistake cowardice for conscience, against their 
better judgment, for some of them voted and spoke for the 
increase of salary — into sending back their increased salary 
to the treasury, yet if any newspaper-man has sent any part 
of his " back pay ” to the treasury, he has not made himself 
visible to the naked eye. 

NO ANSWER TO SAY TREY DO NOT VOTE IT: JUST AS BAD TO 

TAKE IT. 

The replies made in excuse for this are twofold: 
1st. These men did not vote this compensation for them¬ 
selves, and the Congressmen did. 2d. If wrong in these men, 
it does not aid you. Two wrongs do not make a right. I 
answer, if it was wrong to vote it, it was equally wrong to 
take it; and the men who denounce it so bitterly are simply 
insincere, and do it for a purpose, as I shall show, and not 
in the advocacy of the right. 


16 


THE CONGRESSMAN MAKES NO CONTRACT NOT TO INCREASE HIS 
SALARY DURING HIS TERM. 

The objection against increasing the pay of that Con¬ 
gress, most frequently put forward, and which has affected 
the minds of some good men, is that a contract was in 
fact entered into between the member and the people, 
when he was elected, that he would serve his term for 
the compensation then stated by law. Nothing can be more 
groundless. There was no such contract; and a little ex¬ 
amination of constitutional history will show to any candid 
and discriminating mind that there could in the nature of 
things be no such, either express or implied. 

THAT WHICH ALL GOOD MEN HAVE DONE AND SANCTIONED IS 
AS NEAR RIGHT AS YOU WILL GET. 

To the second, I reply, That which has been done in 
legislation from the foundation of the government, by the 
common consent of all good men, without substantial objec¬ 
tion, must be taken in human affairs to be so nearly the 
right thing to be done as to justify whoever does it; and the 
use merely of hard language will not convince an intelligent 
people that that is a deep wrong and a crime which has been 
sanctioned by every good man in public and private life from 
the beginning of the government. I further contend that 
the increase of salary, made retroactive, was right in itself. 
I will show presently the constitutional power and duty of 
a member of Congress to fix the salary for himself, and what 
was his contract with his constituents at the time of his elec¬ 
tion, and some of the reasons why the salary ought to have 
been applicable to the then present Congress. 

CONGRESSMEN ARE OBLIGED TO VOTE THEIR SALARY UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION. 

The mode of fixing and paying the compensation of mem¬ 
bers of Congress was much considered in the convention 
which framed the Constitution. One proposition was that 
they should receive pay from their States. That was opposed 


17 


by Madison, and other far-seeing men, on the grouncf that 
when politics changed in the State, the Legislatures would 
starve their members of Congress into submission to their 
will. 

IF THE PAY IS TOO LOW NOBODY BUT RICH MEN CAN REPRESENT 

THE PEOPLE. 

Another proposition was made that the out-going Congress 
should fix the pay for the in-coming Congress. That was 
rejected upon the same grounds that in case of a change in 
politics, the out-going Congress would cut off the means of 
living of the in-coming Congress. Again, it was proposed 
that the Senators, representing the wealth of the country, 
should have no pay; and that was advocated on the ground 
that rich men could only come to the Senate, or, in the words 
of Gouverneur Morris, when speaking upon this subject: " He 
was also against paying the Senators. They will pay them¬ 
selves if they can; if they cannot, they will be rich and can 
do without; of such the second branch ought to consist, and 
none but such can compose it if they are not to be paid.” 
Of course such a proposition was rejected then, as it would 
be now. For I take it, no man would desire that only rich 
men should go to the Senate. 

# NO MAN OF WEALTH COULD NOT AFFORD TO VOTE A BILL IN 
FAVOR OF POOR MEN. 

And here I observe that all the men of large wealth 
in Congress did not vote for the increase of salary, 
with the single exception of the senior senator from 
Pennsylvania. They thought they could afford to vote 
against it, because it made no difference to them. 
Having means, through my professional services and income, 
by which I can live without any salary, I thought I could 
not afford to vote against the increase of salary ; for being of 
the people, I deemed a poor man ought to have the oppor¬ 
tunity of representing them in Congress, and if their Repre¬ 
sentative was not so well paid as to be able to live there, one 
3 


18 


of two things must follow, either that he could not go, or, if 
he did go, he would be tempted to sell himself and his vote 
to get the means of living. 

PAY 70 BE FIXED BY EACH CONGRESS EVERY YEAR FOR ITSELF, 

The final result was giving members adequate compen¬ 
sation, to be fixed by the votes of both Houses. There¬ 
fore, by the Constitution arid practice, each Congress fixes the 
salary of its members, not only for a Congress, but 
establishes it every year when it passes the legislative ap¬ 
propriation bill; whether this is done the first day of the term, 
or the first day of the year, or the last day, can make no 
difference, because Congress alone determines its own com¬ 
pensation for itself during its term, and nobody else can do it. 

PAY , IF INCREASED AT ALL , MUST BE VOTED BY THOSE RECEIV¬ 
ING IT. 

Very much has been objected against the sincerity and 
integrity of the members voting this increase of salary, 
because, it is said, they voted to add to their own pay, to 
raise it from where it stood at the time they were elected. 

A moment’s reflection will show you, my dear sir, as well 
as every other reflecting man, that it is impossible ever to 
raise the pay of members of Congress, unless more or 
less of them do vote to increase their own pay. A large 
majority of the present members were re-elected to the 
next Congress. Their pay was fixed at a certain sum at the 
time of their election. If they increase that sum, for what¬ 
ever cause, and make it applicable to the next Congress, then, 
in that case, the majority would be voting an increase of their 
own pay over and above the sum at which it stood at the 
time they were elected. And in the case of the Senate, as 
one-third of them only go out every two years, the pay can¬ 
not be raised at all unless the then present Senators vote to 
raise their own pay. So that the requirement of the news¬ 
papers, that no man shall ever vote to raise his own pay, 


19 


would simply render an increase of pay impossible from 
the beginning of the Government down to to-day. 

THE NEXT CONGRESS WILL FIX ITS OWN PAY. 

I see in the newspapers some senseless talk about repeal¬ 
ing the salary-bill for the next Congress. There need be no 
repealing act. All that Congress has to do is to appropri¬ 
ate such amount as it deems proper for the salary of its 
members; and that becomes the law of the land, taking 
place of all other laws. 

ONLY CONTRACT MEMBER MAKES IS THAT HE WILL JAKE SVCH PAY 
\ AS CONGRESS VOTES. 

Therefore, it will be seen that the contract with the 
member of Congress, when elected, is that he will serve 
two years for such compensation as shall be determined at 
anytime during the term for which he serves by his own vote 
in conjunction with those of his fellows. Or, in other words, 
he agrees to serve for such sum as he, in conjunction with 
his fellow-men, deems reasonable at any time during his 
term of service. On the contrary, the clerk of a commit¬ 
tee does make a contract that he will serve for so much 
per day, during the Congress, and having made that agree¬ 
ment, being a newspaper correspondent or editor, he takes 
his increased pay in disregard of his contract, and writes 
denunciatory articles against receiving back pay, insisting 
on the sacredness of contracts. 

MR. HAWLEY DEMAGOGUES THE BILL , AS IT COST HIM NOTHING 

SO TO DO. 

It is a fact worthy of remark that very little objection 
was made in the debates in Congress to the increase of salary 
being made applicable to the present Congress. The ques¬ 
tion discussed was what the amount ought to be, rather than 
whether it should be made applicable to one Congress and 
not to another. I do remember, however, that Mr. Haw- 


20 


ley, of Connecticut, spoke very fluently upon the subject 
of our raising our own pay, as if it must not always be 
so clone. That member, I hear, has refused to take his in¬ 
creased pay. But as he was elected to serve only three 
months in place of an able Representative of that State, who 
had deceased, and as his back pay would amount to but 
little more than his mileage, which must be deducted, his words 
did not produce so much effect as they might have done il 
they would cost him more, and- if his course while in Congress 
had not convinced the House that his talk was the veriest 
demagogy. 

THE CLASSES OF PUBLIC MEN WHO HAVE VOTED AND TAKEN 
“BACK PAY” FROM THE BEGINNING GIVEN. 

In order that you may see how far those who voted for and 
took their increased pay are justified in their action by the 
precedent and example ot ail public men, although I have 
stated it in general because the present members of Con¬ 
gress are so vindictively denounced by name, and threatened 
to be " stamped with infamy,” let me mention the men who 
have done precisely the same thing, only to a greater extent, 
so far as an increased per cent, on salary goes, — men who 
have been honored in every relation in life by their country¬ 
men, and upon whom no harsh criticism for this cause has ever, 
to my knowledge, been made. 

WASHINGTON AND THE REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS TOOK BACK PAY 
AND ARE NOW DENOUNCED. 

In 1796 the question of giving back pay to the members 
during the whole of the Congress was so little regarded that 
the yeas and nays were not called in either House, so that 
we do not know how our patriotic and pure fathers voted 
upon this increased-pay question. But we do know that 
their salary bill gave to themselves pay back from the 
beginning of the Congress. What a set of "thieves,” "swind¬ 
lers,” " salary-stealers,” and back-pay grabbers,” those old 



21 


Revolutionary fathers of ours were, to be sure ! And how 
Washington ought to have been denounced then, and is 
catching it now, from the newspapers, over General Grant’s 
back, for signing that back-pay bill! 

IN 1818 WEBSTER , JUDGE MCLEAN, R. M. JOHNSON , TIMOTHY 
PICKERING “STOLE” THEIR BACK PAY. 

In 1818, however, I find that John McLean, of Ohio, 
afterwards the honored and pure Judge of the Supreme 
Court for so many years, and thrice a candidate for the Pres¬ 
idency, voted tor his own " back pay.” Richard M. Johnson, 
raised to the Vice-Presidency afterwards, voted with him ; and 
Timothy Pickering, whom both the Country and the Com¬ 
monwealth delighted to honor, and whose memory is one of 
the glories of old Essex, where you and I live, "stole ” his 
backpay by his own vote, in company with Daniel Webster; 
all of whom are now to be branded for so doing as "thieves ” 
by the newspapers, which declare that public men now ought 
to receive such designation for doing the same thing. 

IN 1856 EIGHT MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS VOTED BACK PAY IN 
THE HOUSE , AND THE BILL WAS PASSED BY ONE VOTE. 

In 1856, on the last night of the session, the pay of 
members of Congress, in addition to mileage, was made 
applicable backwards to the beginning of the Congress, and 
the salary was raised more than 67 per cent, besides the prior 
allowance for newspapers, stationery and books, as fixed when 
they were elected, or the " contract,” as it is now claimed, was 
made. The vote stood one hundred in favor, to ninety-nine 
against, in the House. Of the eleven representatives of 
Massachusetts, eight voted for increased back pay and three 
failed to vote, when one negative vote would have de¬ 
feated the bill. That vote also was in favor of an amend¬ 
ment providing, that the increase should apply "to the Con¬ 
gress then sitting, from the beginning of the same.” 


22 


IN SENATE BACK PAY WAS VOTED BY MORE THAN TWO THIRDS. 

HALE , TRUMBULL , BELL AND WILSON VOTED FOR IT. ALL 

TOOK IT. 

In the Senate, on a direct vote retaining the back-pay clause 
of the bill, it was sustained by twenty-seven to twelve, or 
more than two-thirds, among whom were Douglas, Fish of 
New York, Hale of New Hampshire, Trumbull of Illinois, 
Bell of Tennessee, and Wilson of Massachusetts. 

Senator Wilson also made a speech in favor of increas¬ 
ing the salary, stating in substance, if he should die to-night 
he had not money saved from his salary wherewith to buy a 
pine coffin. 

VICE-PRESIDENT WILSON'S SPEECH ON THE u SMALL GAME ” OF 

SMALL POLITICIANS COMMENDED TO SPEAKERS AT HAMILTON 

HALL. 

He also administered a rebuke to the small politicians aud 
editors who seek to make political capital out of the pay- 
business in the following words, which I commend to some 
of the speakers at Hamilton Hall: — 

" I do not believe any party can make anything at this time, 
when we spend $75,000,000 annually to carry on this Govern¬ 
ment, by opposing the payment of a reasonable compensation 
to members of Congress. If anybody undertakes that small 
game, I believe he will be frowned down by the good sense 
of the people.” 

We are now spending $350,000,000 to carry on the govern¬ 
ment. An increase in the same proportion would give a 
salary of $15,000, but the "small game” of the detractors ot 
public men increases with the salary. 

WILSON AND WASHBURNE CONTRASTED AS ECONOMISTS. 

Now, we know Mr. Wilson lived as an economical 
man, "not like a prince,” one who did not keep half a dozen 
mistresses, and, so far as we can guess what that may be, 
.did not "buck the tiger;” yet we have his public declar- 


23 


ation as to the sufficiency of his Congressional salary. 
Mr. Washburne, who as minister took from Congress an 
extra allowance while receiving $17,500 in gold, in Paris, 
a cheaper capital to live in than Washington, says he laid up 
money on his salary. Let these eminent gentlemen set¬ 
tle the matter between themselves. Douglas, Wilson, Bell 
of Tennessee, Sew'ard and Fish, sought and received the 
voices of their countrymen for the highest office, but are 
now to be " stamped with infamy.” 

IN 1866 PAY RAISED 67 PER CENT. BY ONE VOTE'. TWO MASSA¬ 
CHUSETTS MEMBERS IN FAVOR, ONE AGAINST , AND SIX DODGED. 

In 1866, the salary of members of Congress was again in¬ 
creased to $5,000, or 67 per cent., retaining mileage, station¬ 
ery, postage, newspapers, and other allowances, "to be com¬ 
puted from the first day of the present Congress,” or back 
pay for sixteen months ; so by that the " back salary ” of each 
member was nearly doubled. 

GOVERNOR WASHBURN , MINISTER WASHBURNE, AND ALL THE 
WASHBURNES DODGED THE VOTE BUT TOOK THE MONEY. 

The bill passed by a vote of 51 yeas in the House to 50 nays, 
two members from Massachusetts, Banks and A. II. Rice, 
voting in the affirmative ; two members, Boutwell and Eliot, 
voting in the negative, and six members, to wit, John B. 
Alley of the 5th district, Ames of the 2d district, J. D. 
Baldwin of the 8th district, H. L. Dawes of the 10th district, 
Samuel Hooper of the 4th district, and Wm. B. Washburn, 
now His Excellency the Governor, of the 9th district, did not 
vote, or, in Congressional parlance, — quite as elegant as 
" buck the tiger,” — " dodged the vote.” To these add Elihu 
B. Washburne and Henry D. Washburne; indeed the whole 
Washburne family "dodged.” 


24 


GENERAL SCHENCK , THAD. STEVENS AND JOHN F. FARNSWORTH 

VOTED FOR IT. 

Robert C. Schenck and Thaddeus Stevens, honored and 
leading statesmen, voted and spoke in favor the bill. 

And John F. Farnsworth, who is now so loud in his de¬ 
nunciation of back pay, and desires to distribute it to the coun¬ 
ties in his district, since he lost his election, not only took 
his increased pay, back and forward, but voted and carried it 
by his vote. 

ANY ONE OF THE u DODGERS ” COULD HAVE BEATEN THE “ GRAB.''* 

NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN BLAMED FOR NOT DOING IT. 

It will be observed that if any one of our six repre¬ 
sentatives who "dodged,” had voted in the negative, the 
bill would have been lost. Each, however, was either absent 
from his post of duty, or refused to answer to his name. 
Yet who denounced them for remissness in duty, in suffer¬ 
ing a back-pay-increase-of-salary bill to pass ? 

TWO EDITORS IN CONGRESS - RAYMOND A ED BALDWIN - AS BAD 

AS THE REST. 

Another member who "dodged” this vote, but took his 
money, when his vote would have defeated the bill, was Henry 
J. Raymond, editor of the New York " Times.” His action, 
and that of my former colleague, Mr. Baldwin, editor of 
the "Worcester Spy,” who also "dodged ” the vote, but took 
his money, demonstrate that editors, when in Congress, are 
no more honest or watchful of the public treasury, or op¬ 
posed to back-pay " steals ” and " back-salary grabs ” than 
other men. 

BACK PAY VOTED IN THE SENATE BY MORE THAN TWO TO ONE— 
ORES WELL, HOWARD , TRUMBULL AND WILSON VOTED FOR IT. 

When the bill went to the Senate, this " back-pay grab ” and 
" increase in the future for the senators themselves ” passed 
by a vote of thirty-three to thirteen. Among those voting 
in its favor, I find the honored names of Creswell, now a 


25 


member of the Cabinet; the late lamented Howard, ot 
Michigan, Trumbull, and Wilson. Thus these honored states¬ 
men, and specially the Vice-President, again gave me the 
precedent of voting an increase of salary and back pay. 

The newspapers say that the men who take the back pay 
are as bad as those who voted it. So far I agree with them. 

SENATORS SUMNER, WILSON AND BOUTWELL , GOVERNOR WASH¬ 
BURN, MR. DAWES , AND EVERYBODY ELSE TOOK BACK PAY. 

Every member of the Massachusetts Delegations for 1856 
and ’66, including Mr. Sumner, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Boutwell, 
Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Dawes, Governor Washburn, Elihu B. 
Washburne, and all the Washburnes, and all other members of 
the House and Senate for those years took their " increased 
back pay ” and all allowances, and were not denounced by the 
newspapers or anybody, but all were returned to the House, 
re-elected to the Senate, made Governors, Secretaries of the 
Treasury, Ministers abroad, or promoted to high offices 
by election and appointment. 

AND THE PEOPLE SUSTAINED THEM IN “ GRABBING ” IT. 

How is it, then, that all these " back-pay stealers,” "salary 
grabbers,” and " swindlers ” have been sustained by the peo¬ 
ple? Why were they not "stamped with infamy”? W T hat 
difference in the cases can be shown, save that the Congress 
of 1873 gave up its mileage and franking privileges, while 
the Congress of ’66 retained all their perquisites? How 
has the contract been changed? Was not each Congress 
elected under a lower pay established b}^ law? 

IT IS AS HONORABLE TO VOTE FOR IT AND TAKE IT AS TO 
DODGE AND TAKE IT. 

The action of the former representatives of Massachusetts 
has been justified. Was it because the majority of them 
"dodged,” and thus let "I dare not” wait upon "I would”? 
Is " dodging ” the vote and taking the salary to be deemed 
more honorable and honest than openly voting for the salary 


4 


26 


and then taking it, when one believes so doing to be just and 
right ? 

THE NEWSPAPERS DENOUNCE THESE HONORABLE MEN FOR THIS , 
NOT GENERAL BUTLER WHO THINKS THEY DID RIGHT. 

Mark me, I make no criticism on these gentlemen. I think 
they did right in voting for an increase of salary; I think 
they did right in making it retroactive ; I think they did right 
in taking it. If they were absent from their seats when the 
vote passed, I have not a word to say except of regret that I 
am not sustained by their votes as I am by their action in 
taking the money. But if either of the six out of ten of 
Massachusetts men were there and "dodged” the vote and 
afterwards took the money, I have only one observation to 
make, and that is, the people of the Commonwealth know and 
believe that I never " sneak.” 

GEN. BUTLER ONLY FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE OF ALL CHRISTIAN 
STATESMEN WHO HAD GONE BEFORE. 

Thus you will see, sir, that if in this regard I went wrong, 
I had every possible precedent to mislead me. I acted 
under all the light I had, and followed the examples set me 
for more than a half-century by the greatest and best of all 
our public men. I had been taught to revere the elder of 
them in my youth, and in manhood saw the younger honored, 
praised, flattered, trusted, promoted. I was told and believed 
that many of them were praying, god-fearing, Christian men. 
I saw them welcomed into all churches, religious assemblies, 
and heard their teachings from all religious platforms. How 
could I know that this thing which was right when done by 
them, was "swindling,” "stealing,”" back-pay grabbing ” and 
"robbery,” when done by me? By what rule of ethics 
or morals could I be guided in this behalf, if not by the 
precept, the example, the action of such men, and the justi¬ 
fication of that action by the many times repeated votes of 
the people? 


27 


THE SOLDIERS TAKE THEIR BACK PAY AND BOUNTY AS READILY AS A 
CLERGYMAN TAKES HIS. 

Let us not forget also that this " back-pay ” salary bill con¬ 
tained in itself a back-bounty bill to all the patriotic soldiers 
who enlisted at the beginning of the war with little bounty, 
and that the soldiers took their " back pay ” to the amount of 
sixty-five millions, as readily and conscientiously as a clergy¬ 
man would take his " back pay ” in the donations of a sur¬ 
prise party of his parishioners given in token that his salary 
was too small and they desire to make it up to him. 

ONLY A LITTLE MORE THAN ONE-EIGHTH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE 

HOUSE AND ONE-SIXTH OF THE SENATE HAVE BEEN FRIGHTENED 

INTO RETURNING THEIR PAY. 

In view of these facts, you say, " Why, then, do so 
many members of Congress return their pay to the Treasury 
now?” I have heard, more or less apocryphally, that some thirty 
odd out of two hundred and forty odd members of the House, 
and thirteen or fourteen of the seventy-four members of the 
Senate, have so done. 

THEY MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT PETER DID WHEN HE WAS 
SCARED INTO DENYING HIS MASTER. 

The country may well thank God that no more of its public 
men can be frightened out of their propriety by vituperation 
and senseless clamor. For I repeat again, in my judgment, 
no man believes that one of those who have returned their 
pay, did it for any other motive than because he feared it 
would not be popular, and might endanger his future to take 
it. Nor does this argue that they may not be good men, 
or courageous in action. Peter, on whose steadfastness, 
as on a rock, Christ founded his church, who, overpowered 
by numbers, alone of all the disciples drew his sword in de¬ 
fence of his master, and smote the servant of the high priest, 
when he found himself among the servants of Pilate, on the 
unpopular side, denied the same master for whom he had 
fought, and who had wrought a miracle to repair the wrong he 


28 


had done, until the cock crew shame on him thrice; then he 
went out and wept bitterly ; as those who have yielded what 
they believed to be right, because they thought it unpopular, 
will hereafter lament what they have done. I am further 
impelled to say this, because I have not heard of one of these 
gentleman who has refused to have his increased pay for the 
future. I wish I could believe those who have returned 
their pay were actuated from none but motives of conscience, 
for they would have my highest respect, however much 
I might criticise their acts. By so doing, they have 
criticised my motives and my judgment in action, and they 
must pardon me if I remark upon theirs. 

CONSCIENCE WAS NOT THE MOTIVE FOR RETURNING THE PAY. 

NOBODY EVER DID IT BEFORE. 

I should not dare to attribute the return of their pay to 
the treasury, save to conscience alone, were it not for this 
fact, that heretofore no human being has ever acted as if he 
thought it against conscience, or in any way wrong, to take 
increased pay for service to the government retroactively or 
prospectively. It has been done by all classes of men every¬ 
where who have gone before us, since the beginning of the 
republic, and not one dollar has ever been returned until 
March, 1873. Why has not this been done before, or why 
is it done now? Because never before has there been any 
considerable outcry against taking the increased salary by 
the press. Never has there been any substantial denunci¬ 
ation of the men who voted an increase of pay, or objection, 
except, perhaps, in 1815, at the close of a war, when, be¬ 
cause of the poverty of the country, the increase was thought 
too great; then, however, it was only blamed as an error of 
judgment. I must and do conclude, that as conscientious 
men have lived before, as do now. Indeed, if I listened to the 
newspaper accounts of our public men, I should think that 
the men who lived in former times only were pure, and the 
only corrupt men live now. Yet, let me repeat, no public 


29 


man of the olden, and therefore pure time, was moved 
by his conscience to return his money. Nay, the statesmen 
of 1856 and 1866, who were in Congress, have not returned 
their back pay which they then took, although some of them 
have returned the pay they took last spring. How, then, 
can I believe their action to be from the promptings of 
conscience, and not the promptings of fear? Heretofore men 
taking increased pay had nothing to fear. Now they act as if 
frightened by newspaper clamor. 

SENATOR MORTON RETURNED HIS PAY ALTHOUGH HE SAID IN 
HIS SPEECH THAT IT WAS NOT ENOUGH . 

Let us examine the grounds, not too unkindly, upon which 
some gentlemen must stand, who have sent back their pay. 
I see it stated in the papers, that Senator Morton, of Indi¬ 
ana, has returned his pay. And yet, in the Senate, when 
the proposition was to increase the salary from $5,000 to 
$6,500, I find he used this language, as reported in the 
" Congressional Globe : ” — 

“ If I am to have the name of having my salary increased I want it sub¬ 
stantially increased. I want it increased in such a way as to amount to some¬ 
thing. The increase here, giving $6,500 for salary, in lieu of mileage, 
stationery, and newspapers, would be an increase to me of about $800. I 
prefer to let it stand as it is ratber than to have such a change as that makes. 
Everybody, who knows anything about the cost of living in this city, knows 
that tiiere are but very few members of Congress who can save $500 a year 
from their salary. I do not believe there are twenty members of this body 
who can save fifty dollars a month from their salary during the session of 
Congress, while many of them spend the whole of it, and some two or three 
times the amount.” 

/ 

Senator Morton’s only objection to the bill then was ex¬ 
pressed in these words : — 

“I hope we shall increase the salary of the President anyhow. If that is 
not done in two days it cannot be done for four years under the Constitution, 
but we can act in regard to the rest of them at the next Congress.” 

Not a word agaiust the salary applying to the Congress, 
' VO tin< r it. How could Mr. Morton return his pay in 


30 


view of such declarations except from the fear of the lash 
of the newspapers, which he mistook for public indignation ? ” 

THE VICE-PRESIDENT COULD NOT TAKE HIS PAY AS SENATOR 

BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT , BUT BREAKS THE SAME CONTRACT 

AS VICE-PRESIDENT . 

Again, the newspapers tell me that Vice-President Wilson 
has returned his increased pay and written a letter saying he 
cannot take it, because his election was a contract to serve 
for $5,000 a year, the sum fixed by law at the time. 

I do not understand this to be so, and I do not see how he 
can. When he was elected to the Senate at first, the pay was 
eight dollars a day; yet in 1856 he voted and spoke in favor 
of its being raised, both prospectively and retroactively, to 
$3,000 a year. Did not his first election make a contract to 
serve for a little more than half that sum as valid as 
the contract made by his last election? 

In 1866, again, he voted to raise his salary from $3,000 to 
$5,000, although he had been re-elected, making, as he now 
supposes, another contract to serve for the less sum. Again, 
he was elected Vice-President; his votes counted for him 
as Vice-President; he accepted the office and resigned his 
seat in the Senate to take it, while the salary of the office 
stood by law at $8,000 a year. By the new bill, the Vice- 
President’s salary was raised to $10,000 a year. If there can 
be any such thing as a contract for a salary fixed by a man’s 
election, how, with Mr. Wilson’s view of that contract, can 
be take the advanced salary of the office of Vice-President? 
Yet, almost at the very time when he returned his increased 
salary as Senator, on the ground he had made a contract that 
he should serve for $5,000 a year and he could take no more, 
he gave his receipt to the Treasury for his increased salary 
as Vice-President, at the rate of $10,000 a year, although by 
his own showing there was a contract when he was elected and 
accepted, to serve for $8,000, — a contract which he could 


31 


not break as Senator but at the same moment did break as 
Vice-President by taking his increased salary. 

What must be the political stress of weather that thus 
makes men go back upon themselves and vilify their own 
conduct in the past to justify themselves in the present! 

AS TO MEMBERS WHO RECEIVE THEIR MONEY AND USE IT FOR 
ELECTIONEERING PURPOSES . 

There is another class of members of Congress whose ac¬ 
tion in this regard seems intended as a criticism upon my 
course. They will pardon me if I examine theirs. 

Those gentlemen have taken their back pay and devoted it 
to a chosen purpose, sometimes charitable and sometimes 
otherwise. Perhaps one of the best illustrations of such dis¬ 
position of the money is the action of my colleague from the 
8th district, the Hon. Geo. F. Hoar. He drew his increased 
salary and with it endowed an institution for the education of 
youth in his district. If he had a right to take that money, 
he certainly had a right to keep it. If it was not money 
honest enough to keep, then it was not money honest enough to 
take. If it was not honest enough money for him to spend 
for his own purposes, certainly the ingenuous youth of his 
district ought not to be contaminated by being educated with 
dishonestly acquired money. Devoting ill-gotten gains to 
charity does not clean the money. May I remind my col¬ 
league that his way of spending bad money is not even orig¬ 
inal. He is guilty of plagiarism. The chief priests devoted 
the thirty pieces of silver they got of Judas to buying a Potter’s 
field for the charitable purpose of burying the dead; but it 
is called the "field of blood” even unto this day. 

MR. GEO. F. HOAR , JUDGE HOAR , AND EDITOR BALDWIN ALL TAKE 

“ BACK PAY” AND PUT IT “ WHERE IT WILL DO THEM THE 

MOST GOOD.” 

One gets great glory, however, by founding public institu¬ 
tions. It is a favorite method of electioneering of those poli- 


32 


ticians who electioneer through the use of money. Every 
man has a right, however, to do with his own money as he 
pleases; and treating it as his own money, nobody can crit¬ 
icise the use which my colleague made of that four thousand 
and odd dollars of " back pay.” Every man may do what 
he likes with his own money. Generally, he will buy that 
which he needs most. Some men need glory, and therefore 
purchase it; some men need butcher’s meat. I buy butch¬ 
er’s meat with my " back pay.” My advice to him, however, 
would have been, to use his back pay as his brother did, 
when he took "backpajr” as Supreme Judge ; and as his pre¬ 
decessor, of the same district, Mr. Baldwin, the editor, used 
his, in 1866 — take it and "put it where it will do the most 
good.” Perhaps my advice has been followed. That is pre¬ 
cisely what my colleague thinks he has done ! 

BAD AS IT IS , BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS WANT THE BACK PAY 
FOR THEIR PURPOSES. 

To one who takes for granted all that is said upon " back 
pay,” there seems a very curious state of public morals. While, 
on the one hand, its acceptance by members of Congress is de¬ 
clared the acme of all that is dishonest, on the other, I, and 
I doubt not, my colleagues, have received numbers of applica¬ 
tions from religious and charitable institutions to devote our 
increased pay to carrying on their pious and benevolent en¬ 
terprises, generally accompanied with an intimation that the 
money is hardly honest enough for us to keep. 

THIS SHOWS WANT OF SINCERITY IN THOSE WHO DENOUNCE IT. 

If the applicants verily believed that the money was dis¬ 
honestly obtained, they must perceive it is not fit to build 
churches or carry on religious or benevolent enterprises with 
it. The utter obliviousness of such applicants, who must be 
good Christian men, with correct moral perceptions to the 
trite old maxim, " The receiver is as bad as the thief,” coupled 
with the appropriation of their increased salary by several 


33 


members of Congress, to the use of schools, the Washington 
Monument, to the use of their constituents, and other like 
purposes, convinces me that there is no sincerity in the cry 
that a great crime and wrong has been done by Congress in 
passing the salary bill. Else the entire moral perceptions of 
the religious and charitably disposed in the community are 
obscured by their desire of gain, as well as those of Congress¬ 
men by their desire to win popular applause. 

THE PRESS SO GENERALLY DENOUNCE IT BECAUSE THEY ARE 
GRIEVED BY THE LOSS OF THEIR FRANKING PRIVILEGE . 

How, then, is the apparent unanimity of the press and of 
political assemblies, in their animadversions upon the salary 
measure, explainable ? Nothing can be easier. The denunci¬ 
ations of the bill began with the Democratic papers, in hopes to 
injure the President and his administration, by the usual party 
slang, holding him responsible for it, as he could have pre¬ 
vented the passage of the bill b} r his veto, and to impute 
corruption to him, as his salary was thereby raised. But the 
press, of all parties and denominations, were excited against 
Congress, because when the franking privilege, which made 
their exchanges and their county circulation tree, was abolished, 
Congress refused to make any exception in favor of the 
newspapers, and required them to pay postage, as other people 
pay theirs. Whereupon there came up petition after petition, 
from every part of the United States where there were news¬ 
papers, unanimously beseeching Congress, while they might 
abolish the franking privilege for everybody else, to save the 
newspapers from its operation. But, as the press had been 
howling for its abolition for years, Congress wisely, I 
think, abolished it for all,—for Congressmen as well as the 
newspapers, — making it fall, " like the dews of heaven, upon 
the just and unjust.” Therefore the whole press chimed with 
the opposition press in combining to punish Congress for 
taking away their perquisites. 

5 


34 


CONGRESSMEN WERE FRIGHTENED INTO CONDEMNING THE AD¬ 
MINISTRATION. 

This groundless and senseless howl frightened members of 
Congress of both parties, who behaved as foolishly as scared 
men in a panic usually do, each Eepublican member or 
Senator seeming to forget that his act in paying back his 
increased salary to save himself was simply a condemnation 
of the President and the administration he claims to support 
as well as his colleagues, who had acted in the matter differ¬ 
ently, but with as much purity of purpose as he had done. 

MEN WERE ALSO FRIGHTENED INTO DENYING THEIR PARTICIPATION 
IN CREDIT M0B1LIER. 

To what extremes of folly fright will drive public men, we 
have bad lately seme notable examples. Many of our fore¬ 
most men had bought Credit Mobilier stock, doubtless 
believing that they had a right to buy it, and receive the 
dividends that might accrue, and, of course, in the expecta¬ 
tion that those dividends would be large. But when in the 
midst of a campaign, their own re-elections, and the success 
of their party were involved, how many men foolishly, cause¬ 
lessly, and from sheer fright, denied the fact! Some saved 
their consciences by evasive denials, — intended to be received 
by the public as full and complete, — to a frank and coura¬ 
geous mind, the meanest of all possible concealment. Others, 
taking more liberties with their consciences to more fully 
satisfy their constituencies, made full, formal, and clear 
denials, which have since been shown to have been needlessly 
false ; a fact which the country mourns as an ascertained and 
proved blight on the good name and fame of those she has 
trusted, for which there is now neither excuse nor palliation, 
save fear alone! 

RELIGIOUS PRESS JOIN WITH THE QTHERS BECAUSE POLITICIANS 

PAY THEM . 

But, say you, "Can it be that the small matter of 
postage could induce the religious press to have joined 


35 


✓ 


with their fellows in the cry against Congress?” Alas! 
smaller inducements than that have determined the political 
action of the so-called religious newspapers. 

AS GOOD MEN MAY DOUBT THIS POSITION , SWORN EVIDENCE IS 

PRODUCED. 

I know that the good, true, pious, conscientious men and 
women, whose purity of life and conduct so command the 
respect of all men, that all claim to imitate, if not to emulate, 
can hardly credit this statement of mine, or believe that their 
paper, which they think is almost religious enough to read on 
the Sabbath, instead of the Bible, can be controlled by poli¬ 
ticians. "To the pure all things are pure;” and Christian 
men are slow to believe evil of others, especially of those who 
profess better things. Therefore I will give you the proofs. 
You, as one of my constituents, will remember, that I had oue 
contested election in my District, and, in that contest, some 
of the " religious,” and most all of the secular press were 
opposed to me. You will see how it came about, from the 
sworn testimony taken while preparing for trial a suit to 
recover the unpaid political expenses of my opponents. 
Read, reflect, and cease to wonder. The virus has not done 
working yet: — 

EXTRACTS FROM THE DEPOSITION OF-, SWORN 

TO THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 1870. 

Question. You were Secretary of the Dana Committee, I believe, the 
organization which ran that campaign ? 

A. I was. 

Q. Were there any records of the doings and actions of that committee? 

A. There was a regular journal kept. 

Q. In whose handwriting? 

A. In the handwriting of.a clerk of the committee, I after¬ 

ward certifying their correctness. 

Q. While you were acting Secretary, were all the transactions of the com¬ 
mittee entered in the record? 

A. Well, a general record of the transactions. I think every individual 
transaction was recorded, not in detail, of course, and hardly in language 
which would convey to an outsider the exact character of our doings, or the 
object really sought to be accomplished by many of our votes. 





36 


Q. Can you state how much money was raised, and how? 

A. I cannot; I never knew. I do not think a majority of the committee 
ever knew. 

Q. What measures were taken, if any, to procure articles in any of the 
newspapers ? 

A. We made an appropriation for the purchase of the “.” 

“.” of their editorial columns, for which we were to furnish 

the articles, and pay them — I do not remember how much—not over five 
hundred dollars. 

Q. You were to write the articles, and the “.” was to 

publish them? 

A. Yes, sir; the “.” was to publish whatever the com¬ 

mittee sent them. 

Q. What other papers were subsidized ? 

A. I do not know of any other within the district. What arrangements 
were made with the “ Salem Gazette,” I never knew. Most of the “ Gazette ” 
Extras or Supplements, issued during the campaign, were furnished to them 
all printed by the committee. Wright & Potter have never been paid for 
printing “Gazette” Extras, of which they furnished twelve thousand. Out¬ 
side of the district, I know that Mr. R.P. 

W., in a speech before the committee, expressed an opinion 

upon the importance of securing the influence of the Religious Press of 
Boston, which could be obtained by a subscription to the Sabbath-School 

Fund; and on motion it was voted that Mr. W.be a committee 

to make such an arrangement. I do not know how much the Orthodox Sab¬ 
bath-School Fund made out of the operation; but this I do know, that in 
their next issues the Religious Press of Boston declared against General 
Butler being returned to Congress. One incident which fixes this upon my 
mind was this, that there having been during the day after this vote several 

passages between Mr. W.and myself, at the next meeting of 

the committee I read the record as if it were written as follows: — “On 

motion, voted that R.P . . . . W.be 

appointed a committee to visit Boston, and buy up the religious papers;” to 

which objection being made to the form of expression, I read the record as I 

had written it; “ that Mr. W.be appointed a committee to visit 

the religious papers of Boston, and request their influence for the Dana 
movement; ” when it was passed and approved. 

Q. Explain, if you please, how subscribing to the Sunday-School Fund was 
supposed to influence the religious papers to make attacks upon the Republi¬ 
can candidate. 

A. Mr. W. belonged to the Orthodox ring. I and many other members 
of the committee did not; but we all understood that we had made an appro¬ 
priation for the purchase of a part of the machinery of the church, and it 
made but little difference to us into which department our money went, so 
that its newspapers attacked Gen. Butler. By subscribing to a Sabbath- 






37 


School Fund, we did a commendable act, one with which no one could find 
fault, and for which we were to receive an equivalent. We placed it 
beyond the power of any profane man to say we had subsidized the religious 
papers of Boston; on the contrary we had only subscribed to the Sabbath- 
School Fund. Had our records fallen into the hand of the enemy, the trans¬ 
action would read better in that form. 

Q. Where are those records now? 

A. In the possession of our chairman. 

I do not believe the treasurer’s records of any "Sabbath- 
School Fund ” will show it ever got much. If so, let them 
be produced. 

HOW GEN. BUTLER LOST THE u BOSTON DAILY NEWS ”- HURRAH 

FOR THE PALLADIUM OF OUR LIBERTIES! 

Let me give another illustration of how newspapers are 
controlled in their political action on moral questions. You 
will remember that the "Boston Daily News,” devoted to 
temperance and money-making, sustained my canvass for 
governor two years ago. Well, last spring, Governor Wash¬ 
burn naturally desired a re-election, and being a religious 
man, as naturally desired the support of the good people 
who are in favor of temperance ; and therefore subscribed 
three thousand dollars to the "News,” and got it. I lost it. I 
did not get "back salary” enough so that I thought I could 
afford to buy it. I have other instances of newspaper ve¬ 
nality, which they call independence, which I can and may 
give you hereafter, so that you can be fully prepared at the 
next Fourth of July celebration to answer to the fifth reg¬ 
ular toast, "THE PALLADIUM OF OUR LIBERTIES 
—AN UNBOUGHT, UNPURCHASABLE, AND PURE 
PRESS.” 

POLITICIANS GET RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CONVENTIONS AND 

LEGISLATURES AGAINST INCREASE OF PAY TO KILL OFF THEIR 

RIVALS. 

The apparent unanimity of political assemblies in their 
resolutions against this measure can be quite as easily ex¬ 
plained. Every legislature and every convention contains 




38 


several aspirants waiting eagerly for a place in Congress from 
their respective districts. Anything that strikes the incum¬ 
bent down is at once seized upon by those who want his 
seat. How easy, under the protection of newspaper calum¬ 
niation, apparently so unanimous, for an aspirant for Con¬ 
gress to rise in a political convention and offer a resolution de¬ 
nouncing the " back-salary grab,” written, without knowledge 
of his country’s history, with a demagogue’s pen, for a dema¬ 
gogue’s purpose. The members of the convention also may 
care nothing about the question, and, if they do, have neither 
knowledge of the facts nor opportunity to defend the 
measure, and it is allowed to pass. Specially, as whoever 
should oppose it would be published in the newspapers as a 
" thief and robber,” and accused of complicity in every crime. 
No one cares to mix himself up with an apparently unpopu¬ 
lar question without cause. What a convenient weapon with 
which to kill a political rival! and especially when the resolu¬ 
tion can deftly couple the increase of salary with " Credit 
Mobilier plunders,” and other sounding phrases with which 
demagogues vainly endeavor to mislead an intelligent people. 
Most probably neither the mover nor the convention reflect 
that an increase of the salary of a member of Congress to an 
adequate amount is the only antidote and preservative of the 
purity of Congress from Credit Mobilier and kindred specu¬ 
lations by members in the attempt to get money with which 
to support themselves and their families at the capital. Such 
resolutions, whether passed in legislatures or in party con¬ 
ventions j are not the index of the popular judgment or the 
pulsations of the popular heart. They are political tricks, 
which at worst can only mislead for the hour. 

THE GROUNDS OF GEN. BUTLER'S ACTION. 

I have given some of the grounds, as I understand them, 
upon which this measure may with safety wait the decision of a 
righteous-judging people. Allow me further only to answer in. 


39 


a word, more directly your question " as to the reasons which 
governed your [my] action upon this question.” 

HE IS FALSELY ACCUSED. 

Let me premise, you have been told by the press that I 
was the" author of the bill,” " presented it to Congress,” " got it 
referred to my committee,” "engineered it through the House,” 
and " carried it through th# Senate; ” and the Democratic 
papers add the statement that all this was done under the 
direction and in conspiracy with the President for the pur¬ 
pose of raising his own pay; and these essays generally 
wind up as the end and finish of all condemnation by calling 
me the " arch salary-grabber.” 

I hardly need tell you, sir, that not one word of all tlris 
mass of assertion is true, and the men who wrote the articles 
either knew they were false, or, what was worse, did not 
know that what they said was true or false. 

THE NEWSPAPERS MAKE HIM OUT A GREAT “ LEADER ” IN CON¬ 
GRESS. 

They do honor to my capacity overmuch. These falsehoods 
universally accord to me the ability to carry a measure, of 
the most flagrant wrong as they claim, through both House 
and Senate, of course against the'moral sense, the conscien¬ 
tious scruples and the better judgment of a majority of the 
members of both Houses. Weeks, however, hardly had 
passed since these very same newspapers denied over and 
over again that I had any consideration at all in Congress, or 
claim to be considered as "leader” even in the lower House. 
Consistency in the averments of newspapers is as little to be 
hoped for as truth. 

HE ONLY CONSEN7ED TO ADVOCATE , WHEN HE BELIEVED IT RIGHT, 
AT THE REQUEST OF HIS COLLEAGUES. 

The salary measure was brought into the House without 
my knowledge or action, was referred to the Committee of 
the Judiciary without my knowledge, and had been voted 


40 


on in the House, so far as the President was concerned, in 
my absence. In the Committee of the Judiciary, it was 
referred to a sub-committee, of which I was not a member, 
and when the report came up for discussion, I expressed my¬ 
self opposed to it, because I thought the President’s salary 
was already sufficiently increased; as, since the time of 
Washington and Adams, Congress had, as I supposed, in¬ 
creased the allowances for funtiture, servants, fuel, lights, 
and other matters, so as nearly to double the salary. Being 
assured by my colleagues on the committee that I was mis¬ 
taken in that, I examined the matter carefully, and procured 
an inventory of the allowances made by Congress toward 
the. expenses of John Adams, and an inventory of the pres¬ 
ent allowances in the same regard to General Grant, both 
which I gave to the House; and, somewhat to my surprise, I 
found that the perquisites of the President — if I may 
so call them — were not so great in degree as they were 
in the times of Adams and Jefferson, because in those times, 
the horses, stables, and appurtenances of every kind were 
furnished to the President from the Treasury, of which 
nothing now is furnished the President. Upon learning 
this, I consented in the Committee that a bill should be 
reported, raising the salary of the President. I had no 
doubt as to the propriety of raising the pay of cabinet 
officers, for I knew that one cabinet officer, living in a not 
extravagantly-furnished house, which he had hired, paid six 
thousand dollars, out of his salary of eight thousand, for rent 
alone. Nor did I doubt as to the propriety of increasing 
the salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court, or the neces¬ 
sity of raising that of members of Congress. Being the 
only Republican on the committee in favor of the measure, 
who had been re-elected to the next Congress, after the bill 
reported by the sub-committee had been adopted by the Ju¬ 
diciary Committee, I was asked by my colleagues to present 
the bill to the House, and I did so at the earnest urging of 


41 


every member of the committee but one, and the only one 
who opposed the bill; one who has honored himself, for, so 
far as I know, he has not returned his pay, while others, who 
urged me to favor or " engineer ” the bill, are reported as 
having done so. 

ALL THESE FACTS WERE STATED TO THE HOUSE IN HIS SPEECH, 

BUT WERE FALSIFIED BY THE NEWSPAPERS. 

* 

The substance of these facts I gave to the House and the 
country when I offered the bills to the House, using the fol¬ 
lowing words : — 

“ The first part of it raises the salary of the President pf the United States. 
When that matter was first brought before the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
was opposed to it, because I thought that although the salary of the President 
had never been directly increased, yet that we had, by legislation at various 
times, added to the furniture of the White House and the perquisites of the 
President, so as to make a substantial increase of salary.” 

What, then, should be said of these unscrupulous and 
wicked libellers, who, in the face of the record, have de¬ 
liberately falsified it, in order to slander a public officer, and 
to impose on the people, by publishing the exact opposite 
of the truth? 

HE EXPECTED CALUMNY, BUT NOT TO BE ACCUSED OF COVETOUSNESS. 

I felt quite sure at the time that whatever course I took 
in regard to the increase of pay would be the subject 
of newspaper defilement. Had I refused to present the 
bill, and voted against it, then it would have been said, "Hiv¬ 
ing sufficient income of his own, and means of earning more 
by his profession, the salary was nothing to him; he knew 
that he could afford to live in Congress without any salary, 
and therefore played the demagogue by voting against suffi¬ 
cient compensation, so that no poor man could go to Con¬ 
gress.” I confess, however, that I did not suppose the de¬ 
lightful stream of calumny which I knew would be poured 
upon me, whatever course I took, would contain an accusation 
that I regarded it as a question of money to myself; for the 
6 


42 


hard labor of a long business life has given me the means of 
living without it, or any public employment, which I have 
not used in so niggardly manner as to give color to such de¬ 
traction. 

I felt that if I lost what I have, I could earn more ; and if my 
constituents did not desire my public service for them at 
$7,500 per year, there were those who have been, and would be 
willing to give me seven times as much in my profession. 

HE VOTED FOR THE BILL BECAUSE POOR MEN CANNOT LIVE IN 
WASHINGTON AND DO THEIR DUTIES ON THEIR SALARIES. 

I saw in Congress many faithful, efficient representatives, 
honest, temperate, economical men, unable to bring their 
families to Washington ; or if affection and duty induced them 
so to do, they lived in the third story of some second or third 
rate boarding-house, in a single room, combining office, 
parlor, sitting-room, and bedroom in one, so that the rest of 
their means could be used in educating their children, or keep¬ 
ing up the homestead, that they might return to it at the end of 
their term of service. I knew that some of the men of whom 
I have spoken were obliged to borrow money and pledge 
their salaries in advance to pay their way and support their 
families. I saw them exposed, day by day, to the pressing 
temptations of whoever should offer them other means of 
getting money to supply their wants, and I knew that some 
of them had yielded, and disgraced themselves, their col¬ 
leagues and their country by so doing. I pitied the needs 
and the struggle for the means of living which had induced 
them to it, and felt from my soul that such ought not to be 
the condition of a Representative of the American people in 
its Congress. 

THEY ARE TEMPTED INTO SPECULATIONS , WHICH OUGHT NOT TO BE. 

I can easily conceive what must be the force of temp¬ 
tation to a man with a wife and children dependent upon 
him, his business broken up, and his profession gone while in 


43 


the public service, to offer him even ten shares in some 
scheme or speculation like Credit Mobilier, or Cedar Rapids 
Bonds, or Hubbard Silver Mine, which promised large 
returns, if aided by Congressional legislation, so that, in fact, 
they become the price of his vote. 

ALL THOSE WHO CONDUCT AFFAIRS SHOULD BE ADEQUATELY PAID. 

If the country wants honest public servants, it must pay. 
them adequately. The rule is axiomatic. That individual, 
that bank, or other business corporation, pinching the pay of 
clerks and servants below the means of living in the manner 
others of their walk in life do live, becomes in morals and 
in fact responsible for the sure dishonesty, thus induced, and 
are justly punished therefor, by the peculations and losses that 
as surely follow. 

BELIEVING THE INCREASE OF SALARY RIGHT , HE TAKES ALL THE 
RESPONSIBILITY FOR VOTING IT. 

Desiring and intending a poor man shall have the 
opportunity to represent the people in Congress in either 
House, and be so paid that he can stand erect among his fellows, 
and feel himself entirely independent so far as an adequate sup¬ 
port is concerned ; to remove all wish or desire to get perquisites, 
or to overdraw stationery or allowances ; to enable him to em¬ 
ploy a clerk to aid him in doing the business and in answering 
the correspondence of his constituents, — not an unonerous 
burden, which, as you may well guess, in my own case, and 
doubtless in many others, amounts to more than ten 
thousand letters a year,—I voted for, advocated, "engineered,” 
and made myself responsible for — however the same may be 
phrased — an increase of salary to the President, judges, mem¬ 
bers of Cabinet, and of Congress, to every degree in my 
power, and am glad that I was able to bring it about to the 
extent charged upon me. It is a responsibility from which I do 
not shrink, and I shall neither falsify my acts nor prevaricate 
myself in palliation or excuse. 


44 


HE HAS LIVED DOWN THE SLANDERS UPON HIM BY HIS COUNTRY’S 
ENEMIES AND HIS OWN. 

For the reasons stated, and many others and perhaps better, 
to be stated, believing the measure right, I was not to be driven 
trom it by calumny, personal abuse, vile detraction, or base¬ 
less slanders, — methods of attack which have been used on 
me since I entered the service of my country, began by her 
enemies and continued by mine. I felt that I had lived down 
and conquered all such by a blameless public life, against 
which no truthful charge can be brought. 

HIS RECORD , WHEN EXAMINED , SHOWS ALL ACCUSATIONS TO 
BE LIES. 

For more than twelve years, every act of my public or 
private life has been subjected to microscopic examination 
under a blaze of light supplied by the lurid malignity of my 
foes, whom I have neither courted nor conciliated, and 
every supposed spot discerned was thereon published by mali¬ 
cious, scandalous, and venal newspapers, whose worst I have 
defied, each of which accusations, when touched withIthuriel’s 
spear of truth, changes to a LIE. 

HE REJOICES THAT HE IS IN A POSITION TO DO WHAT HE THINKS 
IS RIGHT. 

" I rejoice, therefore, and am exceeding glad ” that there is 
one man who is able, from competence in private fortune, 
from fearlessness of undeserved censure, and indifference to 
all animadversion but the promptings of his own judgment, 
to dare to do that which he firmly believes ought to be done, 
regardless of the support of cowards who never distinguish 
between a right thing and an unpopular one, or the clamors 
of demagogues endeavoring to strike down their rivals 
and betters at the expense of the overthrow of all 
that is right and just. I believe the country will 
confide in and trust a public man who shows that he will 
stand by his conviction of duty and right, act fear- 


45 

lessly and firmly under whatever circumstances of raging 
storm or beating winds, more than in those who trim their 
sails to every wind, having no compass to guide their course, 
but steer only as they are wafted by a favoriug popular 
breeze. 

HE ASKS NO HIGHER FAME THAN THAT OF BEING STEADFAST TO 
HIS CONVICTIONS. 

If what I have done in regard to this measure has tended 
to convince the American people that whatever of their 
interests may be confided to my care will be acted upon 
according to the dictates of my judgment and conscience, 
regardless of all consequences personal to myself; that my 
course will be onward and forward, true to the nation’s good, 
at whatever of personal hazard or under whatever pressure 
to cause me to swerve from the right, so that they will know 
where to look in time of public peril, calamity, or commotion, 
for a man upon whose fixedness of purpose and steadfastness 
in action they may with surety rely, I shall, in so far, have 
acquired that place in the good opinion of my countrymen, 
which most of all I desire in the present, as fitting me for 
service to the people, or as a name and fame to leave to my 
children as an incentive to duty well done. 

I am, very truly, 

Your friend and representative, 

BENJ. F. BUTLER. 

























. 
















































































































* , • 






































































' 



































































0 





















































I 

* 




















« 


I 






















# 










% 





t 



















* 












































nmSLS!; congr ess 


K I f\ aAa .r 111,1111 mu mm m mi mi 

,10 02S 001 787 5 



